The slow death of purposeless walking - k-mcgrady http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27186709 <comment><USER2> _Very few people, particularly in cities, are obliged to do much of it at all. Cars, bicycles, buses, trams, and trains all beckon._

I think they got it backwards. It's suburbia that let's you use your car door to door.

I haven't done the study, but based on my observations walking is one of the favorite activities of inhabitants of my city. In fact people come from far away just to spend the day walking around. Some is leisure, but one can't help but to introspect when left on pavement for too long.

another person known for his walking was Arthur Schopenhauer. He walked for 2 hours every day regardless of weather conditions[0]. I read about this long time ago and it left a lasting impression.

but walking is not the only activity that is good for introspection. For me driving worked just as well. I miss driving.

[0][http://www.apieceofmonologue.com/2009/06/day-in-life-of- arth...](http://www.apieceofmonologue.com/2009/06/day-in-life-of-arthur- schopenhauer.html)

<comment><USER3> In the city where I live (Portland), most people take buses or the light rail when they can't bike due to the rain. In the summer, there's a lot of walking. I've noticed less of it in the suburbs, but there's quite a lot of it in rural Oregon. Simple, cheap fun.

The Buddhists, whom Schopenhauer appreciated and modeled quite a bit of his metaphysical and psychological thinking on, also enjoyed walking a fair bit. The "four positions" of the body for meditative posture, which the early Buddhists reference, are 'lying down', 'sitting', 'standing', and 'walking'. They, the Zen monks, and others involved in philosophical and spiritual traditions, tend to share appreciation for walking forms of meditation, or a love of "pointless" walking, which is meant to foster a more concentrated state of awareness. There's quite a lot of walking involved in the homeless monk's life, as well, as many monks undertake a training rule to abstain from the use of vehicles, undertake a rule to collect food on an alms walk, and may just simply enjoy traveling. Such is the life of a wanderer. Walking on and on can help people drop attachments.

We often see depressed, anxious, obsessive, and manic sorts walking... or more, pacing... which I think resembles the walking of monastics, or shamans, wizards, and priests in "ritual walking". A lot of very creative and intellectual types can be seen to pace mindlessly... can be walking be a source of stress relief? It's a common form of training for the military, and also a common form of punishment for prisons, as marching (perhaps a bit faster pace than walking). But endless walking, marching, and pacing can't be all that good for the mind, as post office workers can "go postal" from too much of it.

Walking mindfully, which can promote philosophical or creative thinking, provide psychological therapy (as Wittgenstein said, philosophy is therapy), or lead to spiritual enlightenment and purity, is as easy as placing all your focus on the soles of your feet... down, down, down, down, or place, lift, place, lift, or left, right, left, right, left, right.

<comment><USER4> Portland isn't really dense urban, though, its has some nice neighborhoods, but you're best off bicycling between them through long stretches of residential houses with big yards.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> An odd bit of the history of walking I recently learned about:

[http://www.npr.org/2014/04/03/297327865/in- the-1870s-and-80s...](http://www.npr.org/2014/04/03/297327865/in- the-1870s-and-80s-being-a-pedestrian-was-anything-but)

> We may think of baseball as America's national pastime, but in the 1870s and > 1880s there was another sports craze sweeping the nation: competitive > walking. "Watching people walk was America's favorite spectator sport," > Matthew Algeo says in his new book, Pedestrianism.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrianism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrianism)

> During the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, pedestrianism, like > running or horse racing (equestrianism) was a popular spectator sport in the > British Isles. Pedestrianism became a fixture at fairs – much like horse > racing – developing from wagers on footraces, rambling, and 17th century > footman wagering.[1] Sources from the late 17th and early 18th century in > England write of aristocrats pitting their carriage footmen, constrained to > walk by the speed of their masters' carriages, against one another.[2] By > the end of the 18th century, and especially with the growth of the popular > press, feats of foot travel over great distances (similar to a modern > Ultramarathon) gained attention, and were labeled "pedestrianism".

<comment><USER6> Amusing note from the NPR story:

> Champagne was considered a stimulant. And a lot of trainers — these guys had > trainers — advised their pedestrians to drink a lot of champagne during the > race. They thought that this would give them some kind of advantage. The > problem was a lot of these guys would drink it by the bottle. That > definitely was not a stimulant to say the least.

<comment><USER7> And thus Bay to Breakers was born

<comment><USER8> I'll have to test the effects of champagne this year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Was living in NYC and absolutely loved being able to walk everywhere and not own a car. The last few months I've been in US suburbia though (Texas/Utah) and it seems actively hostile towards walkers in many places.

Sometimes there's sidewalks, but often they're not continuous and just end for no apparent reason. You then have to walk in the road next to the cars for a ways and hope the sidewalk starts up again.

Even if there are sidewalks, there seems to be a unspoken "don't walk at night" rule even in safe neighborhoods. If I do walk at night, I get suspicious looks. Am I frightening the neighborhood by going on a walk after dark? It sure feels like it.

In suburbia, I'll even get suspicious looks walking during the day - as if I'm scoping out houses to rob or something. And I'm a pretty boring safe looking type of guy (so I'm told, haha).

The exception to this I've found is if I'm walking a dog or walking with another person (preferably female) to legitimize me as a walker.

The longer I'm in these parts of suburbia, the more I realize that these attitudes are somewhat justified. Sadly, I don't think I've ever seen a man walking around the neighborhoods by himself unless he was a vagrant.

Apparently the vast majority of men in these neighborhoods just don't ever go on walks unaccompanied. Otherwise it would turn into a 'normal' activity and the suspiciousness of it would subside.

I realize there are probably great neighborhoods in the US for walking, but from my limited experience (living in ~10 states), they seem pretty rare outside of urban centers.

I spent a lot of time in Germany (US military communities) growing up and it was a totally different experience. Much of Europe that I've seen is likewise a vastly better experience for walking.

In 6 days I'm moving to Berlin. Why? Well, I'm bootstrapping a small systems- training business and want to live somewhere low cost and without a car. While cheap walkable places surely must exist in the US, they're rare and I haven't been able to find many that are also safe and not run-down. If I'm missing some, please let me know!

After being in US suburbia for the last few months, I'm really looking forward to being a first-class citizen as a walker again.

<comment><USER10> This is exactly how I feel when I visit Mountain View for work. Why are the parking lots in front of the store and not in the back? Why do I have to walk through a sea of parked cars to get to my building? It's all very strange to me.

I also noticed the suspicious looks for my terrible crime of not owning a car after dark.

My conclusion: not the place for me.

<comment><USER11> > I also noticed the suspicious looks for my terrible crime of not owning a > car after dark.

i lived near mountain view and did not notice this when visiting on my bicycle or the caltrain. sure, it's not the city proper, but mountain view seems rather quaint and really quite pedestrian friendly, at least in the area by the train station.

<comment><USER10> Try walking from the train station to the nearby Safeway. You'll be lucky if you even make it past the Central Expy.

[https://goo.gl/maps/NoZOa](https://goo.gl/maps/NoZOa)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As some one who currently works from home, a "purposeless" walk is how I start and end my work day – I think of it as my "commute". Walking clears my head, gets me outside for a bit, and helps me separate my home life from my work life.

For me, those walks might not be a necessity, but they are definitely not without purpose.

<comment><USER13> Yes, the paradox is that daydreaming and apparent purposelessness are, in the long run, about the most important things that get done. Or at least the _beginning_ of the most important things: things which eventually _become_ more active and purposeful.

e.g. Peter Higgs was walking in Scotland when he thought of first thought of his boson.

I do feel that the article is somewhat strident (ho ho). The only rule about wandering (and wondering) is that there are no rules or proscriptions. In contravention of the third bullet point I often listen to audio on walks, turning it on and off at whim.

<comment><USER14> " _Yes, the paradox is that daydreaming and apparent purposelessness are, in the long run, about the most important things that get done. Or at least the beginning of the most important things: things which eventually become more active and purposeful._ "

Assuming you actually do something with those thoughts/ideas/daydreams. I have a habit of thinking of wonderful ideas, and never quite getting around to them. At some point, too many ideas are quite debilitating.

But perhaps that's just me. Every since I started on some fun personal projects, I find my alone/me time is spent not thinking up new ideas, but thinking of ideas on how to improve/do the parts of the project I'm currently working on.

<comment><USER13> You're right. It's a bit like evolution. The overwhelming majority of mutations led nowhere but we absolutely relied on the tiny few that got us to where we are today. That said, people who _can 't_ truly relax and daydream (most people I think) are never going to get started. And children who are made to sit still in school can't think so well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This article makes some fantastic points. I find it sad that we force ourselves to have outwardly facing purpose to almost everything we do. Even if purposeless walking has the internal reason of more thought and creativity, we can't do that because there seems to be an over arching need to have an outward requirement to all activity (complete a project, get more exercise, fulfil some need, etc).

This was driven home forceful to me in elementary school, quite a lot of years ago but it stuck with me. A friend of mine, who is now a very successful medical doctor and still quite close to me to this day, would walk around the yard with me at any recess. All recess, every day. Sometimes we would say nothing, sometimes we would have long discussions. My principal pulled us in after a number of months and said "your aimless walking is unproductive and will lead to problems, play a sport or find a game and stop it." We didn't listen, and so far we have been very productive in life, and haven't caused too many problems at all.

<comment><USER16> Is this common in whatever country you're in? If this happened where I went to school, there'd be words at the PTA meeting. Your principal is some kind of control freak.

It doesn't sound normal at all.

<comment><USER15> Good question! I grew up in an upper middle class area of California: Thousand Oaks. I only went to school in public schools. From about 4th grade on there are great concern about students and conformity. Schools, principals, and even teachers were graded on how well students did in standardized testing, how well the students did in sports, and how many "state level" awards the students received. So, basically, if our goals were not in line with that, we were reprimanded by being told we would not "make it in this society". I remember very clearly being told by a teacher that I was destined to drive a street sweeper. This, of course, made me rebel more.

That being said, I can say many of the people in my peer group did conform to these standards and did become very successful. I can point at handfuls of my friends and acquaintances who went to school at MIT, Harvard, Stanford, and many other highly rated schools on full ride scholarships. A number of them have successful careers in medicine, law, politics and even professional sports. So, I guess the proof is in the pudding, it does work.

No one ever spoke up at a PTA meeting because parents wanted their kids to succeed, and the thought process goes that if they followed the program, they would succeed.

Of course, we won't talk about the suicide rate at my high school...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> In Brazil, around the 1920s and for the next few decades, there was a popular activity called "footing" (an obvious anglicism), but it had a purpose. From a Brazilian text I found,

"Footing, coming from the English "to go on foot", happened principally in small cities. Girls would put on their best dress and go out to walk with a clear goal: to be observed by the guys, equally well-dressed."

Coincidentally, I lived in a very small town in Brazil several years ago and this is what they did on Friday and Saturday nights. There was a single, small town square where it happened. On one occasion where I asked a young woman out (in her 20s), this is where we went. All was fine until I looked 10 steps behind us to notice several older people seemingly following us. When I brought it to her attention, she nonchalantly said, "oh, that's my father, mother, uncle and grandmother."

</comment><comment><USER18> Awhile ago, I was robbed at gunpoint while walking through the West Village in Manhattan...I live on the east side but I always walk south along one of the main avenues, then back north, just because it's a nice walk and I also get inexplicably confused by the non-grid-iness of the west side streets. When I had trouble pointing out the exact corner that I was robbed on, the detective point blank asked me if I had made up the story of being robbed, to cover up for a botched meeting with a prostitute (which I guess is common on the west side or something?), because he just couldn't believe why I would walk such a convoluted route to get home.

Also...this is something I learned in high school after learning to drive...when I had to walk or be driven to places, I never paid much attention to what order the streets were in...and only after driving myself does their order become important in my mind. Also, the age of Google Maps makes remembering streets even more irrelevant...I think that was also a factor in the detective's skepticism of me being slightly confused about location. What can I say, Manhattan is a city that invites just walking around in a general direction.

</comment><comment><USER19> I really enjoys the mindless strolling the article talks about. Assuming most people work 9-5, you can only take such walks in the morning or at night. Unfortunately, taking a solitary walk in my (US) city at those times is simply not safe and goes against a multitude of general safety tips.

The biggest problem is the dearth of other strollers. In addition to the lack of a pedestrian culture, US does not much of a concept of "communal life". When I travelled abroad (Asia and Africa, not sure about Europe), I noticed that there are much more people of all ages just lingering around the street/public spaces during the day and at night. They are just hanging out. In contrast American social scene centers around private spaces and networks. Lingering in public space seems out of place and such "idleness" is generally associated with unemployment and other undesirable qualities.

<comment><USER20> Where do you live in the US that is unsafe for walking?

<comment><USER21> I don't know harmonicon's situation but in my case the problem is a small town (metropolitan area now) that was built up without consistently installing sidewalks. It's difficult to walk more than a mile without having to compete with traffic. That is changing though, I believe all new development has to include a sidewalk and there is a slowly developing 'greenways' project that is building sidewalks of twice the normal width with some paths that are not next to streets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm not going to claim that it improves my creativity or makes me a better person, but for the last few years I've generally taken at least a half hour out of the middle of my workday to walk (I'm lucky enough to work next to a park). It massively improves my mood, and I'd fight hard against giving it up.

There was a tube (underground metro) strike in London the past few days, so I walked to work, leaving my apartment at about 6.30am and arriving in the office at 8am, mostly along the river. It was _excellent_ and I'm considering doing it 1-2 days a week even when I don't need to.

<comment><USER23> I walk 45 minutes to and from work each day along a beautiful tree lined street. It is a great way to start the day and then to transition back into home life, sort of a metaphorical journey to leave my work problems at work.

<comment><USER24> My walk is around 20 minutes and the time spent organizing my thoughts for the workday on the way in or winding my brain down from work mode on the way is a great benefit.

Every so often my wife will pick me up directly from work and the conversation is usually terrible because my brain is still thinking of the problems I was solving a couple minutes beforehand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> 97-109-107 And here an article on the slow death of the purposeless browsing [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/the- death-o...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/the-death-of-the- cyberflaneur.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

</comment><comment><USER25> imho, the best companion for a coder in home office is a dog.

Try to explain your problem to your dog, if you are stuck. And if this does not help, walk the dog to free your mind, and relax. Most often the solution is obvious once I'm back home.

<comment><USER26> Completely agree - Plus when he wants to go out and play it forces you to take breaks and refresh yourself. Really helps keep you going and make it more enjoyable by the end of the day.

<comment><USER25> True. A dog is a good reminder that its time for a break. A dog forces you to take a walk 3 to 5 times a day, regardless if its sunny, raining or storm. This certainly has also a health benefit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Even in the city, walking without purpose can be done. During an unemployment spell in the 2008 meltdown, I did a lot of very long (2+ hour) walks with limited destinations in mind other than "Far North" or "Far South". I did them without soundtracks or texting. They gave me a much bigger appreciation for the city. Beauty doesn't just exist in the woods.

<comment><USER28> Cities are wonderful places for aimless walking! When I travel to a new city, my favorite thing to do is to leave 2-3 days at the beginning completely unplanned and just walk out the door of my room and start walking.

On a recent visit to SF, I was waiting for a friend to finish with work. He invited me to stay and hang out at his company cafeteria. When I declined, saying I'd rather go wandering, he and his friends looked at me like I was some kind of partially deranged maniac. I had a great time!

<comment><USER29> Hell, that IS my vacation much of the time. I went to Osaka with no firm plans in mind, though I eventually checked out Kobe, Nara, and saw some of the local sights. It was a blast. I drank in some cool bars, chatted up cute Japanese girls, and ate in completely random, nearly hidden ramen shops. The same with Brisbane, Queensland a couple of years later.

When I was in college I'd go into New York City and just wander around. I walked from the Empire State Building to the World Trade Center (the original was still standing). A cool place to walk in (though overwhelming and a bit dangerous if you don't know where not to go).

<comment><USER27> It's gotten a lot safer - as long as you're in Manhattan you're pretty much fine unless you're drunk in the wrong spot at 3am.

I hear you on vacation walking. I never understood guided trips when there is so much fun to be had with random adventure. Similar to you I enjoyed both Japan and Australia quite a bit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > Very few people, particularly in cities, are obliged to do much of it at > all.

Huh? I'd say the exact opposite. Nothing more boring than walking around suburbia.

<comment><USER31> That's because suburbia is boring. Come to the city.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I live in Tokyo and I absolutely love walking. I sometimes do 10-15 km a day easily. There are so many small interesting back alleys and hidden nooks and crannies here that you could spend half a lifetime exploring this city and still not find everything it has to offer.

I find walking, observing my surroundings and watching people extremely mentally stimulating but also relaxing. It's a great way to get rid of stress and come up with some fresh ideas at the same time. Besides, when you live in a city that's visually appealing, it's hard to get bored even when you're just going from point A to point B.

Tokyo is very pedestrian friendly, maybe even more so than many European cities. Why American cities are hostile to pedestrians is a mystery to me.

</comment><comment><USER33> Reminds me of a friend's response when her doctor asked if she exercised. She said, "On purpose?"

I understand her.

As a busy person, nothing is more boring and time consuming than exercising "on purpose". I ride my bike everywhere, always use the stairs, do my own cleaning, laundry, groceries, and cooking, and constantly jump to conclusions. That oughta be enough.

<comment><USER34> President Obama finds time to devote to exercise multiple times per week - I'm sure you and every other "busy" person can do that too if you really wanted to.

<comment><USER35> Perhaps partly because doing so or not doing so will make national news. That's quite a motivating factor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Reminds me of another quote from C.S. Lewis (who was cited in the article) on the subject.

"Even on those rear occasions when a modern undergraduate is not attending some such society he is seldom engaged in those solitary walks, or walks with a single companion, which built the minds of the previous generations. He lives in a crowd; caucus has replaced friendship."

\- C.S. Lewis from the essay "Membership" in "The Weight of Glory"

<comment><USER37> Should be "rare occasions" I think. Great quote.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Good article.

This bugged me, though:

> The way people in the West have started to look down on walking is > detectable in the language. "When people say something is pedestrian they > mean flat, limited in scope," says Solnit.

...Seeing as how "pedestrian" comes from Latin pedester, which had the same two meanings ("on foot" or "dull and ordinary"). The Romans contrasted it with the more exciting equester ("on horseback").

</comment><comment><USER39> Exactly why I walk to and from work. About 25 minutes each way, instead of taking the bus, or light rail. People always ask me, why do you walk? Because it's damn relaxing, especially when I look over and see traffic.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is probably a dumb question, but why didn't he use mmap for writes?

<comment><USER41> He probably didn't do enough walking before writing the post.

Wrong thread.

<comment><USER40> Yep, nuts. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I'm terrible at walking w/o a destination in mind. A while ago I made this crappy little web tool to give me a random destination to meander to: [http://roust.sknkwrks.net/](http://roust.sknkwrks.net/)

<comment><USER43> How can you be bad at walking without a destination in mind? You just put one foot in front of another and every time you have to choose a new direction, pick whichever way looks more interesting (by whatever measure you classify interesting at that moment).

Not meant to be hostile, genuinely curious.

<comment><USER42> Part of it is motivation. Why bother leaving, if I don't have a particular destination in mind? There are other things I could be doing that seem more important.

The other part is that I fall into patterns _really_ easily. If I don't have a set destination in mind when I leave my apartment, I often just end up at the subway stop I take to get to work.

<comment><USER43> Why not set yourself generic goals rather than a destination?

For instance to find a nice cafe you've never been to before, or a nice bookshop.

<comment><USER42> That's a great idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> The article brings to mind this wonderful short story by Ray Bradbury, "Pedestrian" [1]

        "What are you doing out?"
        "Walking," said Leonard Mead.
        "Walking!"
        "Just walking," he said simply, but his face felt cold.
        "Walking, just walking, walking?"
        "Yes, sir."
        "Walking where? For what?"
        "Walking for air. Walking to see."

[1] [http://mikejmoran.typepad.com/files/pedestrian-by- bradbury-1...](http://mikejmoran.typepad.com/files/pedestrian-by- bradbury-1.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER45> I am an avid walker. Even when I was a kid, I would go for long walks. My parents never worried about me, because I always came back, sometimes after walking for 4 or 5 hours. I would sit in the woods and watch birds. Sometimes I would find myself sitting in a park. Other times I would walk around in cemeteries (they are actually great places to walk. They have paved roads but no traffic).

There was this homeless guy who sometimes sat next to one of the places I would walk past. I guess he eventually got curious, so one day he asked where I am always going. I said, "I don't know. I'll find out when I get there".

In college, people would spend the morning cramming for a big test. I would just go for a walk. At that point, I either knew the test material or I didn't, and destressing was more important.

To this day, I walk a lot, even in the middle of winter in Fargo. I turn my phone off and leave everything else at home. I don't even take my wallet. If I don't have money, it eliminates the urge to run into a gas station and grab some milk, or take care of other errands.

Walking is my meditation, therapy, and medication. My friends and family know when I haven't walked that morning because I get cranky and/or depressed.

It is such a shame that our culture does not allow walking for various reasons. Some places don't have sidewalks. Some places have too much traffic. Other places are just not safe. It really is sad. I wonder how many of our problems could be solved if more people just took a chill pill and went for a walk once in awhile.

</comment><comment><USER46> Please tell me you saw the /r/unitedkingdom thread where somebody suggested replacing walking with wanking?

A great information theory example of what happens when two codes are too close together; walk is one letter away from wank, so a single-letter error changes the meaning completely, but leaves the message still hysterically sensible and readable.

<comment><USER47> It also works with most comments here!

Whoever thought this up is a genius. Thanks for brightening my day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Now if purposeless lifestyle journalism would race it to the grave...

The whole question of purpose is a bit confused. I bet that a lot of people in my neighborhood do most of their walking leash in hand. Does the dog make it purposeful? If I stop by the drugstore or the post office on my usual noon walk, does that change it from purposeless to purposeful?

</comment><comment><USER49> I live about a 5 minute walk from Castro St. in Mountain View. I always walk down there whenever I go to eat food because I enjoy walking. My roommate cannot comprehend why I do this instead of driving. I think it has to do with the fact that our society has become so focused on instant gratification rather than gradual gratification.

</comment><comment><USER50> Just in case if you would like to plan your walks better/discover new places, let me introduce you [http://walks.io](http://walks.io), my weekend project that does this for you by solving an NP hard graph problem of finding an optimal circular route.

<comment><USER51> Your site needs to state the region that it can handle. There's no feedback or error messages when I try to type addresses near me into the search box, and it doesn't say what "Nearest Station" means.

<comment><USER50> Apologies, I totally forgot to mention it works for England only.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I've always been a walker, and I always thought I was alone in doing this. I probably started when I was in middle school. I'd walk around the neighborhood or more often my parents' sizable yard, never for exercise, even if I got that coincidentally, but only for thinking.

Even in college, whenever I wanted to get away from other people, I'd walk around campus, often at night. I wouldn't be going anywhere in particular at all.

I haven't really walked in months now because I can't. I live in a major city where one must make a planned effort in order to get to a park, and even then the park is liable to be crowded, which has a deleterious effect on the great solitude of walking in nature. Walking in a city is just thoroughly unlike walking in nature.

</comment><comment><USER53> As someone who regularly enjoys walking the local conservation areas everywhere he goes, I am always amazed at how empty they always are.

To be 3 miles away from a few million people and only see a handful of others out enjoying the same fresh air and excercise that I am is quite distressing.

</comment><comment><USER54> I enjoy walking around a park near my house, and I find I can have some great ideas usually. I disagree with the 'no soundtrack' suggestion; I have found that listening to music does not stop the ideas from flowing. I also enjoy listening to Mixergy interviews while walking around this same park, Often if the interview is especially interesting, I end up extending my walk so that I don't miss any of it.

And then, at the end of the walk, I come back to reality and the peacefulness comes to an end, replaced with kids, business, other distractions. For a while though, I am in my own little world wandering around.

I usually try to bring a pen and paper with me to write ideas down, I find that typing the ideas into my phone is not as satisfying somehow.

</comment><comment><USER55> A lot of the commenters seem to have missed this recent submission: Stanford study finds walking improves creativity (stanford.edu) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7669818](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7669818)

<comment><USER31> There's a TED talk (aaaaand legitimacy already questionable) that argues that our brains are built for movement. I find this fairly plausible; it feels like a lot of movement activities correlate strongly with better brain functioning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Surprised to see nobody yet mention here Edward de Bono's concept of creative pause.

It's through activities such as purposeless walking — or showering, or doing the dishes — that we allow our consciousness to subside into a routine task while subconscious feedback is allowed to subtly rise. In theory this allows for more of a connection to the deeper going-ons in the brain.

More thoughts on the matter from designer Cameron Moll, dated six years ago: [http://www.cameronmoll.com/archives/2008/11/showering_and_th...](http://www.cameronmoll.com/archives/2008/11/showering_and_thinking/)

</comment><comment><USER57> Interested to know if any other visitors from here were presented with an SSL cert selection dialog for beta.bbc.co.uk:443 on visiting this article - "Select a certificate" not something I've seen before.

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/dedkeid58gj7bln/Screenshot%202014-...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/dedkeid58gj7bln/Screenshot%202014-05-02%2012.19.20.png)

Selecting the DigiCert option delivered a Keychain popup asking me for "privateKey", which kept presenting itself on being deny, deny, denied.

(Chrome/OSX)

<comment><USER58> They must have their server set to request client certificates. Even with that on, most people will see nothing as browsers will only show that dialog if they have any client certificates registered that the remote site will accept (wrt the signing CA).

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> It's a bit difficult where I am (semi-rural)... busy roads, no sidewalks, dogs without leashes (pitbull attacks are too frequent).

But, I do the same with running. I drive to nearby trails most every day. And for the family, we do short backpacking trips with no real goal. Just hike a few miles out to a campsite, hang out, read, cook, play around, and then head home the next evening. My kids are young (7 and 12), and I think it does them a lot of good to be able to cover some distance and pack things in and out on their own.

<comment><USER60> "Just hike a few miles out to a campsite, hang out, read, cook, play around, and then head home the next evening. My kids are young (7 and 12), and I think it does them a lot of good to be able to cover some distance and pack things in and out on their own."

That's great. There's nothing like getting out in the outdoors, camping, and just living a little bit. No real "purpose" other than to experience the nature around you. Kudos to you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Has anyone read Frederic Gros' "A Philosophy of Walking" ([http://www.amazon.com/A-Philosophy-Walking-Frederic- Gros/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/A-Philosophy-Walking-Frederic- Gros/dp/1781682704))? I thought about picking it up yesterday, but I didn't do so and it'd be nice to hear some HN reviews.

</comment><comment><USER61> Smoke a little weed before you go on a purposeless walk. Make sure you have at least a distance, like a mile, that you want to walk. Also, be sure you're in a dense urban environment.

I guarantee it will be one of the most inspirational activities you can do for yourself. I probably do this once a week in SF, and it really dislodges my thoughts/stresses from the previous week.

<comment><USER62> > Also, be sure you're in a dense urban environment.

Why?

<comment><USER63> Yeah for me my ideal relaxed and creative state is in the exact opposite of a dense urban environment. Not that it doesn't have its place, it just seems to impose a sense of purpose on you no matter what you're doing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> This has come up a few times, but I liked ribbonfarm's take on the same topic.

[http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/08/09/how-to-take-a- walk/](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/08/09/how-to-take-a-walk/)

hn discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1590290](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1590290)

</comment><comment><USER65> Here's a fantastic short story by Bruno Schulz that, to me, captures the joy of walking, albeit mostly indirectly: [http://www.akirarabelais.com/vi/o/thelibraryofbabel/schulz/c...](http://www.akirarabelais.com/vi/o/thelibraryofbabel/schulz/cinnamonshops.html)

</comment><comment><USER66> Ughh. A corner strip mall opened recently in my area and plopped down a parking lot with no sidewalks abutting the side streets (there are planters directly between the lot and street).

There is no safe walkable way to get to/through this area. It's really depressing.

<comment><USER67> Walk through the planters!

I may be crazy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> I'm learning to do this again. At first, I had to make myself, but now I really enjoy it. I typically walk during lunch and in the evenings, just for the sake of walking and thinking. I find that it reduces stress and helps me to think more clearly.

</comment><comment><USER69> I've definitely been known to go out and walk 5 miles across town for the sake of it.

</comment><comment><USER70> Interesting "discussion" on reddit about the article (language warning): [http://reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/24g5xn](http://reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/24g5xn)

</comment><comment><USER71> I find myself pacing back and forth whenever I get deep in thought about something. I love walking outside just to think, and it's where I get my best ideas. Though I wouldn't be comfortable doing it in a city around other people.

</comment><comment><USER72> Periodic aimless walking is a huge productivity boost for any dev. It allows you to take stock, prioritize, and adjust your strategies, not mention solve problems. If you're not doing it, try it, $5 says it saves you tons of time.

</comment><comment><USER73> I was reminded of how much people like Steve Jobs and Mahatma Gandhi were fond of walking. Jobs turned the act of taking a walk into a management tactic, and Gandhi converted the walk into a political weapon with his salt satyagraha.

</comment><comment><USER74> There is a newer trend, called _nordic walking_ , as an alternative to walking and running: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_walking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_walking)

</comment><comment><USER75> I read a biography of Paul Dirac recently and it seemed like he did a lot of his thinking about physics while walking. I checked and am impressed to see that the BBC has actually already included this obscure fact in their article!

</comment><comment><USER76> I'm disappointed that there's no discussion about whether Fitbit aids or hinders purposeless walking. Under what circumstances is it primarily a motivator? Under what circumstances is it primarily a distraction?

</comment><comment><USER77> 17% is hardly dying.

I walk 2 hours almost every day. The trick to avoiding suspicious looks is to do it around 3am (programmer sleep pattern). Then, it's even _more_ suspicious, but no one sees you to form that opinion...

</comment><comment><USER78> Yeah, I do that a lot

I don't like bikes, for medium distances I prefer to go by public transport/own transport

Unfortunately walking works only on moderate distances round-trip (you can go further if you go or return using something else)

</comment><comment><USER79> Joyce wrote a fair bit about purposeless walks. Probably about half of A Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man occurs during pointless walks.

I get some good thinking in while commuting on my bike. Probably a similar effect.

</comment><comment><USER80> [http://www.ivv-web.org/home.en.php](http://www.ivv-web.org/home.en.php) Internationaler Volkssportverband Enrich your life through Volkssport.

</comment><comment><USER81> [http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Equity-Ideas-Progress- Illich/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Equity-Ideas-Progress- Illich/dp/0714510580)

</comment><comment><USER82> Most people would have to walk through smog and traffic, and literally enjoy a cold concrete paradise. This doesn't sound enjoyable for meandering. I long for a rural life.

</comment><comment><USER83> Worth remembering the Yogi Berra quote: "Not all who wander are lost."

I think he meant it more generally than just walking around, but a nice reminder nonetheless.

<comment><USER84> ... Isn't that a line from a Tolkien poem?

<comment><USER13> All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king.

(from 'The Fellowship of the Ring'.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> A fun exercise:

Walk down a street you drive on a regular basis; the things you'll notice will make it seem like you're in a different place altogether.

<comment><USER86> Another fun exercise if you already have a well-worn walking route: walk it in the opposite direction. It's striking how doing so makes it seem like you're traversing an entirely different place, even though obviously you're not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> I bet this is comparing regular middle class busy bees to rich people with a lot of land to wander about on. But sure, why not.

</comment><comment><USER88> On the other hand, shower thinking is alive and well. Probably far more common than it was 100 years ago, too.

Wastes more water though..

<comment><USER89> I do both. The main difference is that I look foolish when I do it while walking because I think aloud.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> This is a strange article, because its content reads like anecdotal (European/Western) history combined with generic self-help advice. There is no evidence presented that people are "walking without purpose" _less_ now than they used to - it seems to me that 17% of walks being "just to walk" is actually a fairly high percentage, but there's no point of comparison. Although people probably walk less now because we have more convenient modes of transportation, is the argument that a greater percentage of walks were purposeless in the past?

Treating "Great White Men" of the past as exemplars of how life used to be is ridiculous. Advising people to get out and walk for the sake of walking is great, but I don't think we need to pretend that we've lost a great source of creative thinking that used to be more universal.

<comment><USER91> 17% seems like a really high percentage, actually. Also, without reading the linked study, I can't figure out whether it's 17% of all trips, or 17% of all walking trips that are "just to walk." If one out of five trips are for aimless relaxation, that sounds absurdly high.

If you're comparing the average survey respondent to your average independently wealthy 19th century author, there's a few pretty obvious reasons why people with normal jobs don't aimlessly walk all the time - <AUTHOR> as _a job_ and the appeal of aimlessly driving, which I'm sure scratches nearly the same itch.

<comment><USER92> The 17% figure also includes dog walking. For myself, the midnight walks with my dog have been very rewarding. Giving me time to think about things and reflect on the day. Although there are a good number of dog owners who see walking their dog as a chore, which is not the right attitude to have for being mindful.

<comment><USER93> Walking our dog always felt like a chore growing up. I'd attribute it to being young, but it's now many years later, they have a new dog (both dalmatians) and walking him when visiting is still a chore.

He's either on a leash (by law) pulling relentlessly, or he's free, needing vigilant watch. It's perfectly doable having him walk next to you, but he's still stressing out at everything and it seeps into your bones.

Might be many would benefit from taking walks like you do, I run instead, no patience for walking, but I probably should if only for the benefit of learning to be more patient.

The idea of doing something so unproductive and slow is really hard to get over, though.

<comment><USER94> That's a badly mannered/behaved dog though, many dogs don't act like that.

<comment><USER95> It's a dalmatian. One that hasn't been trained very well as you point out, but it's part of the breed. They run a lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> I first read "The slow death of purposeless coding".

<comment><USER97> Sounds like you might need to go for a walk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER98> Went walking today, left the audiobooks at home...

</comment><comment><USER99> It's astonishing how many people I see walking with headphones and earplugs in.

</comment><comment><USER100> I once read a pretty impressive string of biographies where all of the guys did their serious thinking on long walks - Steve Jobs, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincol, I might be forgetting others.</comment>


SpaceWeather: Correlate solar activity with system health and outages - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Graylog2/graylog-plugin-spaceweather <comment><USER2> If you just want the real time data and don't need to integrate it with your monitoring software, the current data in graph form is available at: [http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/ace-real-time-solar- wind](http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/ace-real-time-solar-wind)

</comment><comment><USER3> Ha... shows you. My code runs on a satellite in geosynchronous orbit* , so this is actually useful!

* : not actually true.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is actually pretty useful for HAM and any other radio activity. Thanks!</comment>


Skype for Linux Alpha and Calling on Chrome and Chromebooks - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.skype.com/2016/07/13/skype-for-linux-alpha-and-calling-on-chrome-and-chromebooks/ <comment><USER2> Dupe: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12086223](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12086223), [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12091933](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12091933)

Similar discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12086769](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12086769)

</comment><comment><USER3> I knew they would use Electron ಠ_ಠ

But I can't blame them, I can imagine the difficulty of maintaining a native Linux application considering that the majority of their users are either on Windows or Mac. Since they released the web client I knew they would come up with this "solution" to offer a new client for Linux users. At least the mobile version is native, otherwise I would be flipping tables. Guess Electron is winning more and more space among millennial developers, so maybe I should give up on hating these web applications disguising themselves as native software altogether.

<comment><USER4> What can one expect?

Productivity from native desktop development of tools like Delphi and XAML are probably bonn fire old tales that millenals hear from ancient grumpy old developers that cannot grasp how wonderful HTML 5 is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Now if they only restore the quality of actual Skype calls/video that would be great. I see a significant deterioration of quality over time. I can't remember a skype call that wasn't disconnected, a conference call that someone didn't get muffled or a video call that worked well in recent time. I've been trying to use hangouts for most conf calls because of that.

</comment><comment><USER6> Am I the only one that is disappointed that they no longer have a native Linux app? (The original Skype used QT)

<comment><USER7> What was the advantage of using QT instead of Electron? Isn't Electron optimised for the platform it runs in?

<comment><USER8> Mainly, it didn't need a crapload of RAM.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is fantastic news - Skype is a decent product, and fairly universal, but it also happens to be NSA spyware. I'll now use it, because it's sandboxed within a web page!

</comment><comment><USER10> Now that Android Apps hit ChromeOS Dev on Asus Flip, Pixel 2015, and R11, I'm not sure what more point there is for a web-version of Skype (on Chrome and ChromeOS) - except that Android Apps will not obviously be available for older devices. Still, glad to see progress is being made, because this has been a long-standing issue for further adoption of the ChromeOS platform.

</comment><comment><USER11> By way of a plug, you can 2-way connect Skype chat with a few other services: [https://sameroom.io/integrations/skype- integrations](https://sameroom.io/integrations/skype-integrations)

</comment><comment><USER12> As a Linux user I'll take anything when it comes to Skype, even if it feels a little cheap to get a packaged web app, I dont know why, there is no reason for it really, its not like I'm going to use it offline anyway.

</comment><comment><USER13> As a long term Ubuntu user, I appreciate this much. As a Samsung SmartTV owner, I'm curious how long will it take for Microsoft to bring back Skype for this platform.

</comment><comment><USER14> I wonder why the webrtc video calls only work on Chrome(OS) and not other modern browsers (Firefox, and even Brave which is also a Blink based browser).

</comment><comment><USER15> Sweet. I was just struggling today with the old Skype on Ubuntu from 2014. Wouldn't receive files properly. This is a god send.

</comment><comment><USER15> Just need to get proper desktop notifications integrated into this alpha version.</comment>


The "Forever Lock". Un-pickable lock with an amazing design [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JpfkGAuhV8 <comment><USER2> From my experience: If it's man made, it can be opeend, broken, circumvented etc.</comment>


Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top - <AUTHOR> http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

<comment><USER2> Sexism.</comment>


FBI Investigates Shooting of Military Helicopter over Northern Virginia - <AUTHOR> https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/fbi-investigates-shooting-of-military-helicopter-in-virginia/5336759/ <comment><USER2> AFAIK it _should_ be difficult to do much to even a civilian helicopter with small arms unless its flying way too low anyway (below 500ft).

That's why I support citizen ownership of anti air weaponry. For sporting purposes. The anti-varmit capability of a 20mm cannon should not be denied to us avid shooters, etc. Shooing off pesky black helicopters recycled from the 90s is just a bonus.

<comment><USER3> One of the crew members was injured. It would be difficult to bring down a helicopter with small arms, but the crew inside are definitely vulnerable, probably more so over Manassas VA than they would be overseas as they're not looking to be shot at here.</comment></comment>


Why the global telecoms dream turned sour - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/874aa854-ff3c-11e9-b7bc-f3fa4e77dd47 <comment><USER2> Damn it's paywalled though</comment>


Google: Payday Loans Are Too Harmful to Advertise - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/google-payday-loan-ads/482340/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> Whether you believe in hell or not, you can hope with me, that the owners and politicians that support payday loans will suffer a similar fate as the rich man in Luke 16:19-29 [http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/16:19](http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/16:19).

"And [the rich man] cried out, Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send [the poor man] Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames."

Stay thirsty my friends!

</comment><comment><USER3> But apparently malware "driver updaters" and bank account phishing sites aren't, because they do that all the time.

Seriously though, glad to see some standards in what they let people advertise.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think this is admirable, and I think that payday loans are generally bad.

However, it's an extremely misunderstood industry. I used to generate thousand of dollars a day in payday leads from organic search, and ~50% of my applications were submitted on iPhones. I still don't know what to think about that.</comment>


Basic Sound Processing in Common Lisp [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYcDtniJdoE <comment><AUTHOR> As mentioned in the video description, slides are here: [http://lisp.amsterdam/presentations/2017-11-02/sound_process...](http://lisp.amsterdam/presentations/2017-11-02/sound_processing.pdf)</comment>


Show HN: NightSofa Watch any movie in HD from Google. Feedback! - <AUTHOR> http://nightsofa.com

<comment><USER2> Looks cool, but the two movies I selected weren't actually HD movies. Quality was more like a cam movie.

Impressive though, well done!

</comment><comment><USER3> That's quite impressive! I'm curious how it works, is it finding these movies through google video searches? Or what?

<comment><AUTHOR> Google ;) Feel free to check it out! [https://github.com/nightsofa/nightsofa](https://github.com/nightsofa/nightsofa)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Does this have anything to do with Popcorn-Time? Looks you are using also Yify API?

<comment><AUTHOR> Well... it could be said we were inspired by them

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Doesn't seem to be working.</comment>


Another crypto-currency is born - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21709329-another-crypto-currency-born-known-unknown <comment><USER2> (Article date: Oct 29th 2016). This is so last week. Zcash has already crashed. Peaked around $5000, today $127. Not only that, the anonymity feature didn't work. You can't send to "z addresses" only. This is claimed by the developers to be a bug they will fix. Since that was the main feature of this altcoin, and they shipped with it broken, they're either incompetent or disabled it to avoid regulatory problems.

Roger Ver, a convicted felon who claimed Mt. Gox was sound[1], is involved with ZCash. What could possibly go wrong?

ZCash is from Tel Aviv, headquarters of "binary option" scams. The entire Tel Aviv based binary options business has been exposed as a scam. [2] (Short version: a binary option is a bet against the house, not other investors, and the house cheats. Online binary option companies claimed to be in lots of places, including Trump Tower, but they're almost always really in Tel Aviv.) People in the "binary option" industry are now looking for new scams. "Forex" is one. There's a lot of interest in "blockchains" there.[3] This is a worry.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP1YsMlrfF0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP1YsMlrfF0) [2] [http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-wolves-of-tel-aviv- israels-...](http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-wolves-of-tel-aviv-israels-vast- amoral-binary-options-scam-exposed/) [3] [http://bravenewcoin.com/news/bitcoin-and-blockchain- startups...](http://bravenewcoin.com/news/bitcoin-and-blockchain-startups- booming-in-israel/)

<comment><USER3> Zcash prices were insanely high on day one because demand was high and there was practically no supply. Everyone knew that was going to happen and the price is now normalizing.

There is a bug with mining to zaddresses but Zcash developers have been extremely transparent about it and were the first to say that this crypto is untested and will be iterated.

As for Tel Aviv... it doesn't matter where technology is developed, does it? Your comment strikes me as xenophobic muck raking.

ZCash has unique properties. You're free to not buy it and honestly the negative speculation helps those of us that are interested in using it as it keeps prices down (for now).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article neglects to mention Monero or Dash, the preexisting altcoins designed to be have anonymous transactions, or any existing shuffling tools like dark wallet.

I'm not an expert by any means, but this seems like a good compare/contrast that elucidates zcash's actual place in the space: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/41vg68/monero_vs_zc...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/41vg68/monero_vs_zcash_eli5_fundamental_differences/cz63pqw/)

<comment><USER5> Disclosure: I am an engineer working on Zcash.

Anonymity is not a binary. Monero, even with the addition of RingCT, is vulnerable to transaction graph analysis (intersection attacks) that can de- anonymize users. Zcash takes a completely different approach that achieves ledger indistinguishability -- shielded transactions in the blockchain have no apparent relationship with each other, which is an essential privacy benefit.

Much of what I read in that thread is wrong or misleading: Monero does not have a trusted setup, but it's important to note that a failure in Zcash's setup does not disrupt the privacy of the system. The "poison-pill" vulnerability is not a concern in our system. The claims about the anonymity set are very misleading. It is possible to do far more than multi-sig in our system, we just haven't implemented it yet. The point about mining is specific to the paper and is irrelevant.

There are downsides to the system, such as our performance problems, but they are solveable given time. Zcash is obviously not the only player, but it's also going to continue to grow and adapt and improve, just like other cryptocurrencies will.

<comment><USER6> _Monero, even with the addition of RingCT, is vulnerable to transaction graph analysis (intersection attacks) that can de-anonymize users._

Your comment is highly misleading. RingCT solves 4 of the 5 remaining, known, privacy vulnerabilities in Monero ## The last remaining vulnerability has to do with transactions made with very little turnover, i.e. an amount is received and then immediately spent again. The privacy is stronger as the amounts are held in the wallet for longer.

Monero is useable on a magnitude greater scale in 2017, and a full node can be run with small CPU and memory. Zcash on the other hand requires minutes to send anonymouse transactions.

In other words, Zcash provides 100% privacy at the expense of scalability while Monero provides privacy approaching 100 percent as variable with time.

## [http://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/1495/what- privacy-...](http://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/1495/what-privacy- issues-did-monero-have-and-still-has)

<comment><USER5> You misread my comment. There _is_ an oustanding privacy issue in Monero, one that is often overlooked by its proponents. Transactions involving the same individuals will appear closer together in the transaction graph, and this remains the case so long as Monero's transactions have so few mixins.

My favorite example of anonymity is Richard Stallman's description of an anonymous currency: you should be able to pay a publisher for every article you read on their website, without them being able to associate the payments.

<comment><USER7> You can do that with Monero right now (within a cryptographically negligible, but plausibly deniable, risk) and it doesn't require crazy unreliable cryptography, a (badly done) trusted setup, or 8gb+ of RAM and 60 seconds on a Xeon.

<comment><USER8> What exactly is "badly done" about their trusted setup?

<comment><USER9> The "trusted setup" is a permanent unfixable security hole. While it's partially secure in theory, it goes against the core value of Bitcoin and cryptography where you trust he math and not some person. It will be a constant cloud over Zcash. (I still see great academic value on the work behind Zcash with zkSNARKs, but as a cryptocurrency at the current state it's way too risky for real use)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Another business avenue The Economist might consider pursuing includes the promotion of new penny stocks!

I looked but seem to have missed the disclaimer for this paid advertising. A curious omission of its author too?

<comment><USER11> The Economist doesn't do bylines:

"The first few issues of The Economist were...written almost entirely by James Wilson, the founding editor, though he wrote in the first-person plural.

...

Having started off as a way for one person to give the impression of being many, anonymity has since come to serve the opposite function at The Economist: it allows many writers to speak with a collective voice."

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist- explains/2013/09/ec...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist- explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Their slow-mining start was, I think, a very bad idea. I get that they wanted a more fair distribution and to prevent an initial bubble. However, bubbles and rich early adopters result in organic viral marketing and create a network effect. Given zcash's hype, with a faster coin issuance they had the potential to beat ethereum in marketcap.

I really hope they succeed, anonymous currency is badly needed.

</comment><comment><USER13> Great job - the currency is down 97-99% since launch 2 weeks ago (depending on what prices one takes from the first day of public trading). I've been following Altcoin launches since 2013, and this was the most ill-advised and corrupted so far.

<comment><USER5> That's not the full picture.

Zcash has a "mining slow start" which slowly ramps up the mining reward for the first two weeks, to reduce the threat that a large amount of the ultimate monetary base would be in control of early-advantage miners. As a result of the significantly reduced supply, the price was very high shortly after launch.

<comment><USER14> I think additionally it would be good to compare the price*volume to get an idea of whats happening. If only a few trades were made at $5k...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Another cryptocurrency? Is it Tuesday already?

<comment><USER16> In fairness, this one is actually interesting, in the way that Monero and Ethereum (and perhaps Ripple and Stellar) were also interesting, and 99% of the other alt-coins are not. That doesn't mean it's a good idea or will be successful or profitable, but it's at least interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> _Re Title_ Anyone can make a crypto-currency, adoption is what matters.

</comment><comment><USER18> Ethereum is Turing complete. Did anyone attempt to recursively define a blockchain within it? :-)

That would be the same as the Ubercoin they mention I suppose.

</comment><comment><USER19> Can't say that I like the idea of a kingly reserve to "align interests". Honestly the biggest pull I would have to invest is because I feel I missed the boat with Bitcoin and would feel smart being getting in on the ground floor.</comment>


DNA of every baby born in California is stored. Who has access to it? - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-biobank-dna-babies-who-has-access <comment><USER2> I can comment on this firsthand. I was born in a hospital here in California, so my DNA was collected. A couple years ago I heard about this program, which I believe to be a gross violation of privacy and overstepping of authority. I read somewhere that you can have your/your child's sample destroyed by filling out a form and sending it to a state health agency (don't remember the specific one now). You have to provide name, date of birth, and the name of the hospital. I did so, and perhaps a month or two later I received a letter saying that my sample had been destroyed. Clearly these samples are not de- identified if they are able to be located with the info provided.

I think this program is utterly disgusting. It's a terrible violation of privacy. The DNA of every baby (born in an actual medical institution) is collected, tested for whatever, and then _stored indefinitely._ There is no opt-in or opt-out as far as I'm aware, just that you can later have the sample destroyed _if_ you happen to hear about this program and go to the effort of finding out how to do it. This is some disgusting Orwellian BS.

<comment><USER3> I think it's an extreme overstep as well, but I do believe it's possible the data is anonymous. A secure hash of the fields you were talking about would make it possible to lookup when given the correct information, but impossible to reverse.

Of course, it's just as likely, this already being a government program and a massive overreach at that, that your identifying data is stored in plain text. I just wanted to throw out it's possible it's not.

<comment><USER4> Realistically, the odds are vanishingly small that various security-themed agencies aren't already ingesting all the DNA data. This is a treasure trove in the eyes of a police state.

<comment><USER5> After the Golden State Killer episode, it's now probably seen as cheaper for them to just contact companies like 23andme.

<comment><USER6> I'm surprised 23andme doesn't start marketing directly to law enforcement agencies, to cast a wider net then CODIS familial searches would.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I had a kid a year ago, and another one three years ago. Both had this test.

Their mom probably wouldn't remember if you asked her. She's not really a good person to ask. You should be asking the partner who was there for the birth, since we're the one that actually sees it happen (they were still stitching up my wife when the test was done).

For the second kid (because I was just in a daze for the first kid), being the paranoid security person that I am, I asked what happens to the sample and what kind of controls are placed on the sample. I also asked if I could opt out. I was told that I could not opt out and that the sample becomes the property of the State and there is nothing I could do about it.

This article was the first I learned that I could request it be destroyed. It is also the first time I'm learning it could be used for research (but I kind of assumed that was why they kept it in the first place, other than to add to a database for matching with potential criminal activity).

So thanks for posting this, now I have to figure out how to request the samples. I'm going to see if I can actually the spots back.

<comment><USER8> > I was told that I could not opt out and that the sample becomes the property > of the State and there is nothing I could do about it.

That is so disgusting. For all the talk about individuality and liberalism, it's amazing how liberal societies are so authoritarian and controlling.

If you don't own your DNA, then what do you own? But I guess big brother knows what's best for us.

<comment><USER9> Well, when you don't own the majority of the fruits of your own labor, then I'd say your "DNA" is a drop in the bucket in comparison. But yeah, precisely how you feel is how Libertarians and other actual free-minded individuals feel about concepts such as taxation.

Personally, I don't see DNA as that intrinsic or important as others do. It's just a piece of information about the composition of my body. Sure, if they could completely clone my brain and the essence of what I am, then I could get behind something like this. But as is, I'd just be peeved that someone gets to "use" my DNA. Same way I get peeved that Google/Facebook "use" my browsing habits to train their ML algorithms.

<comment><USER10> I'm most worried that in the future our DNA could be used by health insurers the way financial institutions use credit scores. Those with genetic predisposition to expensive conditions might never be insureable.

<comment><USER11> That would be _society_ doing that, not just insurance companies.

Just like before the ACA it was society at large that didn't worry too much about people being dropped from insurance. Sure, people moralize about how awful it is, but then they take the policy with the lower rate instead of the better underwriting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _" Any tissue sample that is given in a hospital or any medical facility, once it's given, is no longer your property," Lorey explained. "You can agree with that or disagree with that, but it happens to be the law."_

If true this is incredibly depressing. I don't know very much about patient privacy laws but have some follow up questions for those more knowledgeable:

1) I assume this quote refers to California state law and not Federal law?

2) Is there a state that has a track record of taking privacy more seriously?

Despite caring deeply about my privacy I've let it steadily erode with the rise of "customers are the product" type services. Between this and Cambridge Analytica it seems that the US is surprisingly bad at protecting citizens' privacy. I'd like to know if it's possible to live in the US without essentially waiving my right to keep personal information personal.

<comment><USER13> A patient's lack of ownership over their discarded tissue is (at least partially) a result of the decision in _Moore v. Regents of the University of California_ [1] which was, yes, a California Supreme Court case. Though it seems courts in other jurisdictions sometimes agree with its decision.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Regents_of_the_Univer...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California)

<comment><USER3> Wow, reading through that case it seemed like it should have been a slam dunk for Moore. It appears that we literally have more rights over our personal information than we do over our DNA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The article states that parents can request the blood spot sample to be destroyed. A link is given.

 _You do have the right to ask the biobank to destroy the leftovers after the fact, though the agency 's website states it "may not be able to comply with your request."_

Following the link, I saw no evidence that parents can request destruction of the sample. Instead, this is what I saw:

 _You have a right to ask the Newborn Screening Program not to use or share your or your newborn's information and /or specimen in the ways listed in this notice. However, we may not be able to comply with your request._

[https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CFH/DGDS/Pages/nbs/nbsnpp.a...](https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CFH/DGDS/Pages/nbs/nbsnpp.aspx)

I also haven't been able to find information on the process a parent can follow to get the sample destroyed.

Not using a sample is not the same thing as destroying it. What am I missing?

<comment><USER15> > You have a right to ask the Newborn Screening Program not to use or share > your or your newborn's information and/or specimen in the ways listed in > this notice.

Shouldn't this be the default?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is how we found out that my daughter has cystic fibrosis and have been able to treat her from a few weeks after birth. The result is that she'll probably live a normal length life rather than dying in adolescence.

So I'm fairly positive on this program...

<comment><USER17> Why are people downvoting this comment? Even if you think the current system is wrong, you should be thinking of how to fix it without losing the benefit outlined by this commenter.

<comment><USER18> Because you can determine this information and then not store the DNA.

<comment><USER17> That's why people are downvoting this guy?

I totally agree that there's a more privacy-respecting solution. I was asking why people were downvoting this comment.

<comment><USER19> While I hate getting meta and discussing voting in HN comments, the best thing to do in the future is instead of asking why votes are going in one direction or another, instead, either vote yourself, or if it calls for it, offer up on- topic commentary. Comments that stir good on-topic discussion should never be down voted, regardless of whether you disagree with them or not, or even if they are missing a point.

Down voting a comment like the parents is, at best, insulting the very premise of good HN discussions.

<comment><USER17> I hate getting meta, too, and I almost always vote up instead of commenting.

In this case I'm pretty disappointed by the replies I got to my question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> """ "So there is no possibility a researcher may request blood spots for a specific research experiment … but then keep blood spots without the department's knowledge to be used for other purposes?" she asked.

"I want to say no" he said. "But I'm not ready to say no because I know how humans can be sometimes." """

To me that just reads like he knows the answer is yes and is just trying to soft-pedal the truth. Moreover, since he's literally the person selling the dna, it strains my credulity to believe that he hasn't already known this, and if he had already taken steps to prevent it from happening, I'm betting he would've mentioned them specifically.

""" "De-identified DNA" However, Lorey stressed that the blood spots cards, stored in the state biobank, are "de-identified." There is no name or medical information on the card, just the blood spots and a number. """

Is he trying to sell me on the idea that my dna can't be used to personally identify me?

That was a pathetic defense.

<comment><USER21> Obviously the number references your name in another register. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to request to have the sample returned. Got to love American state propaganda.

<comment><USER22> Doesn't sound like propaganda to me. Seems clear. When samples for out to researchers, they only get the sample and no way to look up who it belongs to.

However, officials who have access to the registry could obviously look you up. Hopefully there are controls in place to keep those same officials from having samples tested, but 8 doubt it.

<comment><USER21> Not clear at all. FUD. The existence of this registry is never mentioned in the article which makes it sound like samples are unidentifiable.

<comment><USER22> Ya, not clear if you didn't read it. The article clearly talks about the registry. It says that the registry is stored in a separate building from the samples.

<comment><USER21> Makes no difference whatsoever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> _> If you or your child was born in California after 1983, your DNA is likely being stored by the government_

How ironic that this began right after 1983.

</comment><comment><USER24> It seems we have a similar issue in Australia...

[https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2011/194/6/newborn- screening-...](https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2011/194/6/newborn-screening- cards-legal-quagmire)

and this

"19.16 In 1999, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee referred to newborn screening card collections as 'inadvertent DNA sample banks', noting that identified blood samples containing genetic material from almost all people under the age of 28 are currently stored in most States and Territories."

[https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/19-human-tissue- collect...](https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/19-human-tissue- collections/types-human-tissue-collections)

<comment><USER25> And in Switzerland [1] (text in german). Blood samples from newborn screenings are stored for 30 years. For the screening to take place, the parents' oral consent is required. Opting out of the screening or blood archival is VERY rare. Though personal information is destroyed after analysis, attribution is still possible using LIMS (an electronic laboratory database).

As far as I understand, access to this data is generally restricted [2].

"If illnesses occur later, which can be clarified via tests on this sample, the responsible physician can request it from [Children's Hospital Zurich]. Part of the remaining material may also be used by the screening laboratory during quality control measures and for the development of new research methods. In this case, the samples will be anonymous, having undergone a procedure to make them unidentifiable." [3]

[1] [https://www.zh.ch/bin/ktzh/rrb/beschluss.pdf?rrbNr=1053&name...](https://www.zh.ch/bin/ktzh/rrb/beschluss.pdf?rrbNr=1053&name=RRB-2017-1053&year=2017&_charset_=UTF-8) [2] [https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified- compilation/20011087/...](https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified- compilation/20011087/index.html#a7) [3] [http://www.neoscreening.ch/display.cfm/id/100489/disp_type/d...](http://www.neoscreening.ch/display.cfm/id/100489/disp_type/dmssimple/pageID/80690)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The day will come when DNA sequencing is so fast and affordable, that the storage fees for all these samples will be less (over some period of time) than the cost of sequencing each sample and storing a digital copy. Indexed, identified, searchable.

Then we're really going to have some interesting privacy concerns.

</comment><comment><USER27> > Who has access to it?

My flippant answer, before reading the article: Basically everyone, probably through a web site where the requestor simply uploads a document (any document) then checks an electronic checkmark next to the words "I pinky swear that I will only use this for good and pure and light-giving purposes."

> Who has access to it?

After reading the article: Yep, law enforcement and "third party researchers" (in quotes because, as the article points out, that term is _supposed_ to mean scientists operating under a code of ethics but, yeah).

I dunno, folks, it sure seems like nobody really gives a damn about private information unless it's being used to link them to a scandal and then they _really_ care.

<comment><USER28> You can safely assume that google, facebook and data brokers have it.

<comment><USER29> You can never "safely assume" a wild accusation with absolutely zero proof.

<comment><USER30> You can "safely assume" bigbugbag just made up that rule.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Home births are popular in California (well, relatively speaking anyway); has anyone had a baby at home & did the state come asking for DNA when you went to get a birth certificate or some other time?

<comment><USER32> My wife and I had children at our home in California in both 2013 and 2014.

No, California did not seek any kind of test or diagnostic results (or anything like this). It was never mentioned and this is the first I have ever heard of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> In Sweden a blood repository from babies has already been used by law enforcement for DNA matching purposes [1], even though that was not the intended purpose of the repository.

[1] [https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&ar...](https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6487518)

</comment><comment><USER34> Not accurate. We had our baby at home and his DNA was never collected.

</comment><comment><USER35> If you want your baby screened but don't want your state to keep the sample, the mayo clinic has a screening panel that does all the federally recommended tests, and another one that does this and a bunch more.

The doctors at Kaiser were totally useless when I asked about this: they'd go from "gee, I never heard about this" to "shrug, it's an official state program", and then they piled on the guilt trip about how urgent it is once my kid was born and I was sleep deprived. Bastards.

So you have to research it yourself and get a pediatrician to order the test from Mayo before your child is born, so it's all arranged once you're in labor. Then make sure they use that test, and you opt out of the state test. (Or better yet, if your state claims it's mandatory, refuse the test and if they do it anyway you've got casus belli for a constitutional challenge)

</comment><comment><USER36> My wife gave birth last year in California, and immediately upon returning home, we located the paperwork for requesting the DNA be destroyed and submitted it. We received a response telling us that our request was received, but that's all. Unfortunately neither of us can remember where to find the form we needed to send it to request it be destroyed. Maybe it was in the hospital paperwork?

</comment><comment><USER18> > Nearly every baby born in the United States gets a heel prick shortly after > birth. Their newborn blood fills six spots on a special filter paper card. > It is used to test baby for dozens of congenital disorders that, if treated > early enough, could prevent severe disabilities and even death.

This almost feels like a scene taken right out of the movie Gattica.

<comment><USER37> What? That newborns are checked for congenital diseases? How is that anything but normal?

<comment><USER28> Why would it be normal ?

<comment><USER38> The way many metabolic conditions work is that essential products are not synthesized, or toxic products are not cleared. These can cause unrecoverable damage within hours or days of birth if not treated. So, tests are performed to identify known metabolic conditions to prevent newborns from suffering unrecoverable brain/otherwise damage. This is generally known as "newborn screening" if you are curious to learn more.

<comment><USER39> Not OP but maybe the question is more "why is the state doing this and keeping the samples" not "why is it useful"...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> > Some states destroy the blood spots after a year, 12 states store them for > at least 21 years.

What are the other 12 states?

<comment><USER41> Presumably those that store the spots for between 1 and 21 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> _How on earth_ is this legal in the USA?

<comment><USER43> The default in the U.S. is that actions are legal unless they're made illegal by some law. There's no law against this, therefore it's legal.

<comment><USER44> We need a GPDR for biometrics.

<comment><USER45> That's the problem right there.

It seems the best the U.S. political system can come up with right now is "GDPR for X" where X represents only a few specific industries, because of strong entrenched special interests, lobbying and legalized bribery, which means strong gridlock and disagreement for a more "universal" law. Because the more industries the law would affect, the more billion-dollar corporations would fight against it with TV ads, lobbying and vote buying (sorry, I mean "campaign donations").

GDPR generally applies to _all_ personal data of a citizen. The best I've seen from the U.S. government so far is the Consent Act, which applies only to online services only. It doesn't apply to ISPs, network providers, medical data, or a ton of other things it _should_ apply to.

The more people realize that this "single issue" of taking money out of politics and drastically reducing or eliminating a corporations' influence on political decisions affects _every other issue_ they care about, the better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Pretty sure there will be a lawsuit. What kind of Gattaca/1984 bullshit is this, the state where everything causes cancer? How did CA techies not rebel about this?

</comment><comment><USER47> so this article got me thinking: how is this in my country? Some perspectives perhaps:

\- Every sample is kept in the screening lab and destroyed after 5 years.

\- year 1 is used to (double checking) of the test results

\- following years the sample is used for anonymized research

\- explicit approval is needed from parents for non-anonomized research with the blood samples.

\- every parent has the option to opt out of 4 years research; the sample will be destroyed after the first year if opted for.

Idk why, was just curious.

</comment><comment><USER48> Everyone will have access to it given enough time.

</comment><comment><USER49> What's up with the hoarding and secrecy of medical data? It's real possibility that AI starts to work and solves all diseases in the next few decades. Maybe that's the point? To horde life-extension and immortality inventions.

<comment><USER50> Because it's perfect for discriminating against you. First it's health insurance company putting your prices up due to poor genes, then it's an employer getting rid of you because they see genes for depression and addiction.

<comment><USER49> Discrimination in regards to all sorts of attributes are illegal. Including one of the most useful measurements for predicting job performance, IQ.

You don't need to select for depression and addiction explicitly, companies implicitly do this by forcing normal working hours on their employees.

Insurance is a stochastic tax on the young and healthy to benefit the old and unhealthy. If it's decoupled from employment I don't see why an employer would care. Also, why shouldn't we use all information to predict costs and risk?

This whole medical data hoarding might be a "what if" scenario on AI and immortality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Fuck this. Water-birth at home. The government can fuck right off.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a company logo web service? - <AUTHOR>

Is there a web service that can look up a company logo by SEC CIK number, ticker symbol or some other unique ID?
ex: GET http://log.os/{{CIK_NUM}}/100/100 returns a 100x100 px logo for company matching {{CIK_NUM}}
If not, am I the only one interested in having one? <comment><USER2> INAL and I don't want to piss on a good idea, but the first thing that came to my mind is that company logos are trademarked and that you might be opening an unexpected ball of hurt for yourself.

<comment><USER3> IANAL either, but...

While a company's logo may be under trademark or simply copyright protection, you still have a legal "Fair Use" right to use the logo for the purpose of identifying or describing the company.

Most often, this is what logos are used for on a site. For example, "As Seen On... TC, CNN, blah blah blah". They obviously cannot be used to mislead someone into thinking the company is tied to or endorses your site.

Here's an article about it: <http://smallbusiness.chron.com/fair-use- logos-2152.html>

<comment><USER4> Yeah, I think it's a fine line. For example, the Washington Post wrote an article about my last company. We included a link to the article on our media page (where we listed every mention in the press), along with a tiny WaPo logo. Several months later I received an email requesting some unreasonable sum (~$4k, IIRC) to continue use of the logo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting idea. You could probably use the google image search api - <http://code.google.com/apis/imagesearch/></comment>


Apple reminds the FCC that it can't activate imaginary iPhone FM radios - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/28/whose-fcc-is-this/ <comment><USER2> Better link: [https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/09/fcc-chief-ajit- pai-w...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/09/fcc-chief-ajit-pai-wants- apple-to-stop-disabling-fm-radio-chips-in-iphones/)

Until iPhone 7, there was a FM chip but it was from a commodity board and Apple actually never connected the chip to the phone. After iPhone 7, it simply does not exist. All this is in FCC filings of Apple.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not sure why the article needed that smug condescending tone, not everyone is a tech blogger who upgrades their phone every year, plenty of people are still using sub iPhone 7 devices which as the article states DID include a radio hardware just not connected, yet the article seems to focus on how absurd it is that someone could be using an old device.

<comment><USER4> I'm not talking about the tone, but since the FCC demands and gets detailed technical specs of all cellphones sold in the U.S., it's hard to believe that the information "the thing that the head of the FCC has been asking about for a long time is clearly not possible" wasn't known by the FCC.

It's not just about very recent devices versus phones a few years old; the FCC has the information to know that there hasnt been anything like a "switch to flip" for (at least) many years.

</comment></comment><comment> mark-r The article says the FCC must test all radio devices, but that's not true at all. The manufacturer is responsible for testing the device to ensure it meets FCC regulations.

<comment><USER5> I'd also be a bit surprised if the FCC were involved with FM radio receivers. Can you not make a simple transistor radio in the US without getting it approved by the FCC?

<comment><USER6> To your specific question: no, I don't think a transistor radio would require certification unless it was somehow RF emissive.

On a broader level, _making_ things without the FCC is fine unless you start disrupting communications networks; _selling_ them is a different issue. In reality, all of this testing and certification is done by independent laboratories and the FCC _mostly_ just makes sure the compliance paperwork is in order.

<comment><USER7> Depending on the exact architecture used, it's surprisingly easy to accidentally leak your first IF oscillator out the antenna port and broadcast it to everyone in the area. The FCC seems to be relatively lenient about FM radio receivers in general though and let manufacturers self-certify their compliance with the rules without any independent testing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Has anyone ever used the FM radio in their phone? I did once but got tired trying to orientate the phone and the headphone cable in a position to get decent reception.

<comment><USER8> I used to use mine every day at work. Was frustrating to find that my Galaxy S7 doesn't have one (or it is disabled) - though a little portable replacement was inexpensive.

<comment><USER9> Most radio stations have streams available in much better quality than FM. Why choose FM over streaming ?

<comment><USER10> Received signal strength. Despite popular belief, cell service requires cell towers, which doesn't exist everywhere grass grows.

<comment><USER9> Really, what's is the last time you did not have at least 3G reception ? In my country mobile coverage is 99.5%.

<comment><USER11> _Really, what 's is the last time you did not have at least 3G reception_

Last time I went up into the mountains.

 _In my country mobile coverage is 99.5%._

What country is that? Even relatively well connected countries like Sweden and Norway have lots of spots out on some islands, deep in the forests or out in the mountains that don't have any mobile connection at all.

<comment><USER9> > What country is that?

The Netherlands.

That 0.5% is mostly on the borders where there is possibility of interference with networks in the neighbouring country. The problem is also being fixed after a bit of national outrage over the fact that people can't reach emergency services in that 0.5% and the operators had to make promises to quickly cover that last bit too.

<comment><USER11> Well the Netherlands is a bit of special case. Small, densely populated countries are trivia to cover in mobile reception

<comment><USER10> To the contrary, someone who lives in the Netherlands is quite prototypical of who I'd expect to hold such a naive purview.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This article is misleading to say the least, and the _issued a statement_ doesn't even link to anything relevant. Summarily clickbait garbage.

<comment><USER12> They mislinked because the page they sourced for the statement has a weird set up where the url changes based on your scroll position on the page (scroll down and you will get this link [1]). It's an honest mistake, not clickbait.

[1] - [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fcc-apple/fcc-says- app...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fcc-apple/fcc-says-apple-should- activate-iphones-fm-radio-chip-but-newer-phones-dont-have- idUSKCN1C328C?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtechnologyNews+%28Reuters+Technology+News%29)

<comment><USER10> Or they could have, I don't know, linked to the actual statement[1] like the converse of clickbait garbage would have.

[1] [https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-346949A1.p...](https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-346949A1.pdf)

<comment><USER12> I do agree, and this discussion is a bit meta of the actual article, but I find that if mistakenly mislinking a source is all it takes to be labeled clickbait, then the definition of clickbait is too broad to be of any use.

The article does discuss the inconsistency between the FCC's statement and the reality of the builds pretty clearly with other sources as well commenting on the same thing.

I'm not quite sure what about the article is clickbait or how it's being defined here. It would have been great to have the original statement, yes, and it was lazy or an oversight (both?) to not include it, but I wouldn't really call it clickbait. It's a coy title, for sure, but the FCC statement is indeed factually incorrect in its assertion that Apple has FM chips in their iPhone that can be activated.

<comment><USER13> Further to that, I would argue that clickbait is really based on the _title_ of an article.

"Apple would like to remind the FCC that it can't activate imaginary FM radios that iPhones don't have" is pretty damn informative as far as titles go. It's editorialized, sure, but clickbait would be "You'll never guess which major phone brand the FCC is trying to bully!!"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Apple thinks every piece of hardware older than 2 years is imaginary. They wish.

...Typed from a 10 year old MBP running linux - FU Apple

<comment><USER15> Well I'm sure Apple would love to hear your ideas for remotely activating to unconnected FM chip inside the older iPhones

<comment><USER14> Unconnected? these parts are all on a single IC these days, "connecting" is almost always a matter of firmware... you think they would have bothered including a physically separate device that they intended to not use? the reason old models had FM is because it's all on one chip based on someone else's design that is difficult to modify, unwanted features aren't worth removing on that scale.

<comment><USER16> You can't add a non-existent antenna in firmware.

<comment><USER14> Seriously? I did not know that... so they didn't just drop that pin to the headphones just in-case? what bunch of dicks.

So lets see the full Apple response is really: "We finally rid the radio of that extra FM functionality in our last two phones, and we intentionally made it physically impossible to use in older phones because we have vested interests against FM radio even though it's a potentially life saving form of communication."

And you are defending these people why.

<comment><USER16> I didn't defend them, I just explained why they couldn't do what you suggested (reconnect the radio with a firmware change). If you want to get angry, ponder why they took away my beloved headphone jack. :-(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Thats almost certainly a lie or misinformation, the baseband and wifi chips of an iPhone do have that capability, they are basically software defined radios. Its just that the firmware of those chips might have deactivated that capability. [edited]Apple generally wants you to use their music streaming service not radio.[/edited]

Do people genuinely believe if a head of marketing of a corporation tells them that they "care deeply about the safety of our users"?

<comment><USER18> Genuine question, because I know little to nothing about SDR: Even with SDR, don't you need an antenna that fits the wavelength? WiFi and cellular frequencies are far from FM frequencies. And I think most other phones use the headphones as antenna, rather than inbuilt antennas.

<comment><USER17> Yes, all phones with FM capability uses the headphone jack, usb connector or passive antenna adapters to get the FM signal in the first place. There would be some options for the latest iPhones aswell even without headphone jack.

Using an SDR you can generally receive a very broad range of frequencies its only a matter of the antenna. You can even build them yourself, there some tutorials that use a Pringles chips container to make a wifi antenna.</comment></comment></comment>


Open Source Objective-C Code With Github and CocoaPods - <AUTHOR> http://nilsou.com/blog/2013/07/21/how-to-open-source-objective-c-code/

<comment><USER2> How about creating a wiki page with the project architecture? It will definitely help me understand the code much faster.</comment>


Mac Malware Outbreak Is Bigger than 'Conficker' - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/253403/mac_malware_outbreak_is_bigger_than_conficker.html

<comment><USER2> That's weird, an article about Macs that _isn't_ being up-voted fervently. (I kid, I kid.)

Interestingly enough, by "bigger" they just mean that a larger percentage of Macs are infected compared to the percentage of Windows machines that were infected by Conficker (when compared to the total number of machines in use on each side).

<comment><USER3> Hmmmm ... I just read a blog post (Ars??) that upto 1% of Macs could be infected.

What percentage of Window machines did Conficker infect? 30% 50%? I seem to remember it was a huge percentage.

<comment><USER4> Estimates vary... here's one:

 _"It's estimated that at its peak Conficker infected more than 11 million PCs globally."_

\-- [http://www.sophos.com/en-us/security-news- trends/reports/sec...](http://www.sophos.com/en-us/security-news- trends/reports/security-threat-report/html-04.aspx)

Numbers in the range 15-25 million were also tossed around. It's hard to estimate.

Steve Ballmer expected the Windows installed base to cross the 1 billion mark in mid-2008: [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-expect- windows...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-expect-windows- installed-base-to-hit-1-billion-by-mid-2008/596)

Conficker peaked around January 2009 I believe. At 10 million that would be 1% of 1 billion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I take issue with one of the claims in this article, 'Apple isn't to blame for the threat. The vulnerability is in Java, not Mac OS X' if Apple decides to ship a component with their OS (as they do with Java) and takes responsibility for upgrading the components - then it is their blame if they delay the patch for a month and allow all these additional machines to be infected.

Hopefully we'll see a 'malware removal' patch from Apple in the next five days or so.

<comment><USER6> I thought they stopped shipping Java with the OS.

<comment><USER7> Technically: yes.

Instead of Java, Mac OS ships with a stub that, when launched, offers to download Java from Apple's servers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Stupid linkbait headline (on the source, submitter is not to blame). Their first paragraph clarifies:

 _(...) the Flashback Trojan botnet is even bigger than the massive Conficker botnet… relatively speaking._

That's all there is to this "article".

</comment><comment><USER9> This is a very misleading title.

</comment><comment><USER10> A lot of these reports are based on data from Russian antivirus vendor Doctor Web. Does anyone have any information on Doctor Web, and how valid their counting methods are?

<comment><USER11> Kaspersky confirmed the number. [https://www.securelist.com/en/blog/208193441/Flashfake_Mac_O...](https://www.securelist.com/en/blog/208193441/Flashfake_Mac_OS_X_botnet_confirmed)</comment></comment>